Never forget that the lab leak was a “conspiracy theory” that the New York Times’ head Covid reporter called “racist.” If you think I’ll tire of recalling this, my friends, you are wrong.

submitted by Chipit from thewrap.com

top 100 commentsshow all 109
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]thoughtcriminal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not just the NYT. The Lancet, which is arguably the most prestigious medical journal in the world called it a racist conspiracy theory as well, in an article signed by 27 scientists (26 of whom just happen to have ties to Wuhan).

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9980015/26-Lancet-scientists-trashed-theory-Covid-leaked-Chinese-lab-links-Wuhan.html

[–]twolanterns 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Lancets has been been a known as a political driven entity for decades

[–]Site_rly_sux 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (99 children)

I dont know why people find this so hard.

If you believe in a lab leak because of chyna democrats hunter nancy kungflu then yeah you're a racist

If you believe in a lab leak because of a genuine theory of evidence which you can lay out - then you never need to talk about chy-na kungflu.

So if you're talking chy na and not "here's some evidence" then I know you're a racist

[–]Musky 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (95 children)

That's retconning what happened, no such nuance was applied, the lab leak theory was roundly rejected as a racist conspiracy theory regardless. Which turned out to be dead wrong. A lot of the "misinformation" was not, in fact, wrong.

We could have saved a lot of people with drugs like metformin. If you don't know why anyone thought ivermectin, and drugs that perform similar functions, might work, you were part of the problem.

You ignorantly denounced ivermectin as horse wormer, right?

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (94 children)

Surely he knowledgeably denounced ivermectin as a horse dewormer

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Good to see The Science™ in action again. So very, very simple to find no effect when you don't want to find one.

The COVID-OUT trial is another fourth-rate trial designed to fail, full of flaws, that has been overhyped as "proof" that Ivermectin doesn't work. It sounds like a good study, for those with a superficial understanding of the surface features of the study. But if we look closely, we find critical problems that invalidate the study results.

Here are just a few of the many problems with the study that we're supposed to ignore because it gets The Right Answer™:

  • The study found a 61% lower rate of hospitalization in patients treated with Ivermectin compared to placebo -- but the authors didn't report that in their paper. You have to request the data from the authors' to see that.
  • The paper's conclusions are contradicted by the details in the paper, e.g. the authors consider only metformin results to be positive however the symptom results hidden in the appendix (Figure S4) show the opposite: the other two drugs, including Ivermectin, show faster improvement but no difference is seen for metformin.
  • The subjects were instructed to take Ivermectin on an empty stomach, which is known to reduce the potency of the drug by nearly a factor of three.
  • Late treatment: Ivermectin is known to work best with early treatment, as soon as symptoms start. With the design of the study, patients don't begin treatment until a minimum of five days after symptoms began, up to 11 days in some cases.
  • The treatment arm for Ivermectin was three days of active medication followed by eleven days of placebo pills, compared to 14 days of active medication for the other two drugs being trialed.
  • Use of low-quality brand of Ivermectin. Like most medications, Ivermectin varies in quality depending on the source. The source used in this study was rated 7th out 11 for quality in a blinded test.
  • Editorial bias: the study's authors found that Metformin was a promising treatment for Covid, but the journal editors changed their conclusion.
  • The three placebo groups had very different outcomes, which suggests that they weren't properly randomized, or some other confounding factor.
  • One of the primary objectives of the trial was to look at whether the three drugs improved viral load, but viral load was not reported in the final paper, and the results of viral load are not available from the authors.
  • Confused conclusions in the paper: the authors report odds ratios which are notoriously difficult to interpret, even for scientists. The paper wrongly claim that "None of the trial drugs resulted in a lower severity of symptoms ..." but multiple results show lower severity in the treatment groups.

This study is junk science.

CC u/Musky

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nice post, but one thing, and I might be wrong about this, but Ivermectin is similar to DMARD drugs for rheumatoid arthritis and some of those are also cancer drugs. They supress the immune system, which is counter-intuitive, but may be beneficial to prevent the cytokine storm that happens with severe covid.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ivermectin affects viral cell entry, nuclear transport, and inhibits replication via RdRp. It also suppresses cytokine production through STAT-3 inhibition, and is an effective protease inhibitor.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The study found a 61% lower rate of hospitalization in patients treated with Ivermectin compared to placebo -- but the authors didn't report that in their paper. You have to request the data from the authors' to see that.

The paper reports "Emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death" for ivermectin. The active group had 23/406 = 5.7%. The control had 16/394 = 4.1% the control was safer than the ivermectin group.

And it reports "Hospitalization or death". The active group had 4/406 = 1.0%. The control had 15/394 = 1.3% This was a reduction in hospitalization and death, but only a 23% reduction in rate, and a reduction of 0.3% which for the numbers in the study is about one person.

No result is signficant, and trying to double it by excluding the death as if that's better than hospitalization is disingenuous of you at best.

the authors consider only metformin results to be positive however the symptom results hidden in the appendix (Figure S4) show the opposite: the other two drugs, including Ivermectin, show faster improvement but no difference is seen for metformin.

I'm looking as figure S4, and it shows none of the expected symptom scores differ from the control by more than the error bars.

The subjects were instructed to take Ivermectin on an empty stomach, which is known to reduce the potency of the drug by nearly a factor of three.

That's not the recommendation I find with google. Can you link me to that information?

Ivermectin (Oral Route)

It is best to take this medicine on an empty stomach.

Late treatment: Ivermectin is known to work best with early treatment, as soon as symptoms start.

Is it? Can you link me to the research that finds that too?

The treatment arm for Ivermectin was three days of active medication followed by eleven days of placebo pills, compared to 14 days of active medication for the other two drugs being trialed.

That gives a dose over the three days of 1.2-1.4 mg/kg of weight. Poison control suggests individuals who have received more than 2 mg/kg be seen in a hospital..

So even one more day would be dangerous, and two would recommend hospitalisation for ivermectin overdose.

No specific antidote for ivermectin exists, so prehospital should be supportive. Coma is common in large overdoses and the airway should be appropriately managed.

I'm surprised that they got that dose through the ethics committee. It's cutting it pretty close to dangerous.

The source used in this study was rated 7th out 11 for quality in a blinded test.

Where the test was one dish with 6 worms in it, and the end point washow long it took to kill each worm. At least run it a dozen times in case the starting health of the worms or inconsistencies in per worm dosage causes due to the flow in the initial pipetting was the source of some of the variation.

Editorial bias: the study's authors found that Metformin was a promising treatment for Covid, but the journal editors changed their conclusion.

Getting the authors not to p-hack isn't "bias". The primary composite end point was defined. Metformin didn't achieve 95% confidence on that end point.

The three placebo groups had very different outcomes, which suggests that they weren't properly randomized, or some other confounding factor.

Which outcomes had the most statistically significant differences?

One of the primary objectives of the trial was to look at whether the three drugs improved viral load

I can't see that. Where do you get that from?

Confused conclusions in the paper: the authors report odds ratios which are notoriously difficult to interpret, even for scientists.

The confidence interval is the best thing to look at. If it spans an odds ratio of 1, the study doesn't show a significant effect.

This study is junk science.

I'm not convinced, but I look forward to your response to my queries.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

52% had been vaccinated

😂

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The effect might be stronger in the vaccinated or the unvaccinated, so you have to have both in you study group.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

No, the funny thing is that we're studying sickness progression in vaccinated people, because this 'vaccine' didn't stop infection or transmission or negative health impacts.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It greatly reduced them.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

of course. heil Pfizer.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It is what it is.
Two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection risk by ≥80% and, for those with prior infection, increased protection from prior infection alone.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

that's amazing that the study was half vaccinated then, with their risk 'reduced by 80%'

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (77 children)

You ignorant swine, learn why Ivermectin was promising.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (76 children)

It was never promising.

The amounts that affected viruses in vitro would've been impossible to achieve or deadly to a human in vivo.

It was just picked up by the antivax movement as a crutch to their crap about the vaccines converting your liver into a 5g transmitter, which allowed Bill Gates to upload positive opinions of Azure to your spleen. (Or whatever the bullshit du jour was.)

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (75 children)

It was never promising.

This is misinformation. Doctors didn't just pluck Ivermectin out of thin air. They picked it because it was already known as a safe, cheap anti-viral.

Ivermectin is one of the most important human drugs in modern pharmaceuticology. It has been in widespread use across the world for over 35 years, with over 3.7 billion doses used, and is considered to be safe, almost side-effect free, effective and cheap. It is on the WHO's list of essential drugs, and the discoverers of its active ingredient, Satoshi Ōmura and William C. Campbell, shared the Nobel Prize For Medicine in 2015 for their discovery. In terms of global human health, it up there with penicillin as a wonder drug.

For the US FDA to dismiss it as "horse dewormer" shows just how dirty the politicized medicine has gone.

Ivermectin affects viral cell entry, nuclear transport, and inhibits replication via RdRp. It also suppresses cytokine production through STAT-3 inhibition, and is an effective protease inhibitor. All of these facts suggest strongly that Ivermectin could be a powerful anti-viral against RNA viruses like Covid. It has been used, off-label, for HIV, Zika, and MERS (a close relative to Covid). In vitro studies also show effectiveness against dengue, West Nile virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Chikungunya, pseudorabies virus, adenovirus, and SARS (another close relative to Covid-19) coronaviruses.

So when the pandemic hit in 2020, doctors on the front lines, actually dealing with dying patients, in the absence of any approved effective treatments, turned to off-label use of drugs they knew were safe, well-tolerated, and had anti-viral properties. And they found that Ivermectin worked. There are mountains of clinical cases of patients recovering from Covid after being put on Ivermectin, and I don't mean the Omicron cold, I mean the really dangerous strains early in the pandemic. Even the Gamma strain.

As of April 2023, there are 96 studies with over 135000 patients comparing Ivermectin against control groups that support Ivermectin as a safe, effective treatment for Covid and only a few poor-quality but over-hyped studies such as TOGETHER and COVID-OUT finding otherwise. And keep in mind that there is an enormous publication bias against publishing positive results in favour of Ivermectin. As the anti-Ivermectin blogger Scott Alexander says:

"if you say anything in favor of ivermectin you will be cast out of civilization and thrown into the circle of social hell reserved for Klan members and 1/6 insurrectionists. All the health officials in the world will shout 'horse dewormer!' at you and compare you to Josef Mengele."

Alexander means this as a good thing.

The problem with Ivermectin is that the process for getting drug approval for a new use is so expensive that, as a general rule, only large pharmaceutical companies can afford the trials, and they will only run them if the drug is patented and highly profitable. Ivermectin is no longer protected by patent, and is being manufactured by so many companies around the world that the price is typically cents per dose in places like India, and even in the US only $1-2 per dose. As a generic drug, there's no profit in running a multi-million dollar trial only to see dozens of competitors swoop in and undercut you.

Ivermectin is even worse, because the original patent-holder, Merck, committed to producing and giving away Ivermectin to developing countries for free, to treat river blindness. I'm sure that they felt very charitable about that back in the 1990s when they made that promise, but 30 years on Ivermectin is an albatross around their neck they would love nothing more than to get rid of, and if that means killing its reputation, so be it. That is why they refused to help when the Japanese and Nigerian governments asked them to help trial Ivermectin against Covid. That is why Merck was so publicly negative about Ivermectin, preferring to push people towards their own patented anti-viral Molnupiravir despite significant side-effects and major questions about its effectiveness and safety.

Follow the money. Molnupiravir, backed by a pharmaceutical company that can afford to wine and dine doctors and government officials, and hire lobbyists, has been approved for use. Ivermectin, which has much more evidence in its favour than Molnupiravir, has not.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (74 children)

This is misinformation. Doctors didn't just pluck Ivermectin out of thin air. They picked it because it was already known as a safe, cheap anti-viral.

It's not an antiviral. It's a antiparasitic. It's antiviral effects noticed in vitro, were only at concentrations that were unreachable in vivo.

Ivermectin affects viral cell entry, nuclear transport, and inhibits replication via RdRp.

In vitro.

As of April 2023, there are 96 studies with over 135000 patients comparing Ivermectin against control groups that support Ivermectin as a safe, effective treatment for Covid

Lets go through them shall we?

Skipping the first one, which is a preprint, the next one "Clinical Disease Characteristics and Treatment Trajectories Associated with Mortality among COVID-19 Patients in Punjab, Pakistan", isn't very compelling for ivermectin: p = 0.129 is plausibly due to chance rather than ivermectin, and the 95% CI includes at the top that it made death up to 20% more likely.

Considering the plethora of evidence that ivermectin is ineffective, this p=0.129 is too weak to claim that it supports that ivermectin is effective.

[–]Vrepit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I've used it a few times when I was experiencing an early flu onset that was making coworkers be bedridden for a week at a time. It literally stops a viral infection from propagating further within 6-8 hours...does not reverse it, but puts it into a limbo. I was back to work the next afternoon with minimal symptoms. The only side effect I had was drowsiness, which coffee fixed.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It literally stops a viral infection from propagating further within 6-8 hours...does not reverse it, but puts it into a limbo.

All viral infections?

HIV?
Herpes?
Hepatitis B?

Can you link me to the studies?

[–]Vrepit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

My comment was in the context of a flu virus. There's no need for embellishment on my original statement. Even though Ivermectin's antiviral properties have been previously established, with Sars-Cov being a recent concern, much more research has been done in clinical environments.

I'm not your research assistant and it appears you are not genuine or honest with your query. Any one else that has interest in Ivermectin's antiviral properties, can simply search for the studies on Pubmed.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (63 children)

It's not an antiviral. It's a antiparasitic. It's antiviral effects noticed in vitro, were only at concentrations that were unreachable in vivo.

This is disinformation that has been pushed hard during the Covid pandemic to discredit potential treatments which threaten the massive profits gained from EULA drugs such as Molnupiravir.

There is more evidence for Ivermectin being a safe and effective anti-viral in humans than there is for Tamiflu, nevertheless doctors can lose their license for recommending Ivermectin while the dangerous and ineffective Tamiflu is still readily available nine years after it became clear that it doesn't work.

Is Ivermectin a cure or treatment for Covid-19? I honestly don't know. But what I do know is this: during the Covid pandemic, under the excuse of a state of emergency, the standard for authorizing new, barely tested, often known to be dangerous, and expensive drugs for treatment was massively lowered:

  • One week before the public release of a large WHO trial concluded that Remdesivir is ineffective against Covid, the EU signed a billion dollar deal to purchase the drug;
  • then two weeks later, after the WHO's study was already public, the American FDA approved its use based on a single study of just 1063 patients and 33% improvement;
  • in the UK, Budesonide was approved for use with just 1 study on 1779 patients and 17% improvement.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (62 children)

So you're saying it works in animal models, with viruses other than Covid-19?

I was trying to go through your claim that there are "96 studies with over 135000 patients comparing Ivermectin against control groups that support Ivermectin as a safe, effective treatment for Covid"

I presume you meant in humans an against Covid-19.

If you agree that p = 0.129 isn't very compelling, we should go on to the next one.

Or is p=0129 good enough for you to establish effectiveness considering that there is other work that shows it's not effective?

There's 96 of these bullshit papers to get through, so I'd appreciated it if you include some attempt to address the point amongst your adding of red herrings.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (61 children)

I was trying to go through your claim

I literally quoted your exact words I was responding to. You denied that there have been any in vivo studies of Ivermectin demonstrating antiviral properties. I showed you multiple in vivo studies where it demonstrates antiviral properties.

You denied that Ivermectin is an antiviral. I quote: "It's not an antiviral." That's false. If you aren't even willing to admit that you were mistaken about that, there's little point in continuing this discussion.

There's 96 of these bullshit papers to get through

Oh that's not biased at all. 🙄

How do you know they're bullshit before you have looked at them?

Earlier in another post you claimed that coma was "common" after Ivermectin overdose. That is untrue. Ivermectin overdoses are exceedingly rare in the first place, and even in overdoses coma is even more rare. One known risk factor is co-infection by O. volvulus together with L. loa (which is mostly a risk in Africa); another very rare suspected risk factor is a mutation to the MDR-1 gene, which can allow Ivermection to cross the blood/brain barrier. Even in cases of coma, recovery is usually complete. Details here.

I will tell you this: given

  1. the very good safety of Ivermectin;
  2. how few other options existed early in the pandemic; and
  3. the amount of direct clinical evidence from doctors on the front line;

the campaign to denigrate and ban the use of ivermectin was a monstrous act. Of all the crazy and not-so-crazy things that doctors tried for their desperately ill patients, Ivermectin by far stood out to front-line doctors as helpful, and yet it was the only treatment where there was a mass campaign from governments, hospital administrators, academics, drug companies, legacy and social media to prevent people from using it.

Even if it was useless it would do no harm and would not interfere with any other treatment, or lack of treatment as the case may be.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh, further information about the shit-show that is the COVID-OUT trial:

Medical research and peer-review are broken.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The paper uses a 95% CI.

"Our trial suggests that metformin may reduce the likelihood of needing to go to the emergency room or be hospitalized for COVID-19." Doesn't contradict that. It looks as if it might hit at 90% CI, which I reckon the comment is fair to say, if you don't gloss over the qualifiers "suggests" and "may reduce".

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    it took time to corroborate the lab leak theory.

    Researchers who knew about the Wuhan Institute of Virology and their work put two and two together and got the answer "Oh shit!" the moment news of the pandemic came out. It doesn't take a genius to realise that if you have an outbreak of a new respiratory coronavirus in a city containing a low biosecurity lab doing dangerous gain of function research on bat respiratory coronaviruses with high potential to infect humans, the two might be connected.

    Unfortunately the Wuhan Institute, the Chinese government, and the people in the US government funding that GOF research in Wuhan have done everything possible to hide evidence which might clear it up one way or the other. So we're left with a mountain of circumstantial evidence which would be sufficient to conclude that the virus was a lab leak beyond all reasonable doubt, aside from a bunch of scientists closely associated with the Wuhan Institute (like Fauci and his cohort of followers) who are running interference with dubious Coincidence Theories.

    [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Meanwhile, back in science, it's looking likely that the animal intermediate between bats and humans was racoon dogs.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65067264

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00998-y

    [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Name checks out.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Of course it is racist to suggest that Covid originated from an accidental lab leak. We should only consider non-racist explanations like Covid originating from dirty foreigners eating disgusting wild animals in unhygienic conditions like the filthy barbarians they are. /s

    [–]twolanterns 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    there comes a point when its no longer journalism and is simply propaganda for a foreign power

    [–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    The lab Theory is another hoax, because they'd rather throw Facci under the the bus, than admit COVID is the regular old flu.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Its a coronavirus, not influenza. Its not the flu.

    People arguing that Covid-19 doesn't exist at all are disinformation to discredit actual real critics of the Covid response, but lumping them in with nutters, crackpots who claim that "its the flu" and "its caused by 5G", conspiracy theories so mad that they could only have been deliberately created as a distraction.

    [–]BISH 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Sure. Can you explain how influenza disappeared in the winter of 2020?

    Here's a link to the absurd excuse from the CDC. Do you believe it?

    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/faq-flu-season-2020-2021.htm

    [–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Sure. Can you explain how influenza disappeared in the winter of 2020?

    Easy -- combination of out-competed by Covid, lack of testing for flu, and over-testing for Covid.

    • Covid was racing through the population like a forest fire, people who are sick with one respiratory virus almost never catch a second virus at the same time. So when you had lots of Covid cases, they were preventing flu cases.
    • We know that PCR tests have many false positives. If you caught Covid in (lets say) December 2020, recovered, then caught the flu in February, the first thing the doctors will give you is a Covid test which will come back positive because of the December illness, and the flu test which might have proven different would not be given, because what's the point? You've tested positive for Covid, right? So you'll be counted as a Covid case instead of the flu.

    Put the two of those together, and the flu almost completely disappeared for over a year. We know of at least one strain of influenza virus that may have become extinct because it couldn't compete with Covid.

    The CDC explanation is bullshit. The CDC has been almost completely taken over by Big Pharma shills and Useful Idiots, so they interpret everything in one of two ways:

    • "See, our drugs and vaccines worked, you need to take more of them."
    • "If they don't work, you just need to take more of them, and then they will work."

    Flu vaccines are, at best, only about 40% 60% effective and often much less. If it was the vaccine preventing the flu, that wouldn't explain why it doesn't prevent the flu every year, or why it disappeared in other countries too. And if lockdowns and isolating were capable of preventing the flu from spreading they would have worked against Covid too, which they didn't.

    [–]BISH 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Easy -- combination of out-competed by Covid, lack of testing for flu, and over-testing for Covid.

    You believe the ridiculous CDC narrative?
    PCR was misused to rebrand the flu into COVID.

    They moved deaths caused by flu like symptoms from the "influenza" category into the "COVID" category.
    And made up a bunch of variants to pump up fear in the media.

    They vaccinated everyone that they could fool, and eventually gave up on those who weren't buying the lies.

    And when people stopped getting jabbed, the variants went away as quickly as they appeared.

    It was a media pandemic.
    A psyop to get the global population injected with a mystery serum which never prevented transmission.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Me: "The CDC explanation is bullshit."

    You:

    You believe the ridiculous CDC narrative?

    Yeah, if you can't or won't even read what I said, why should I pay any attention to what you say?